Would you rather have a $5200 a year raise or work 6 less hours per week?

[Zervek]

To be honest, why would you want to work less? Working a lot is what makes you a responsible adult and productive member of society.

[h4rr0d]

Do you also plan to give similar raise to your nonmanager staff? You know, those that actually create the value for your company?

On topic, with kid under way, I'd definitely take the extra free time to spend with my family.

[Aggrophobic]

I guess that depends on how much money you're already making.
I'd probably take the 6 hours. Especially if I could save them up as, maybe a few extra vacation days or something like that.

If I didn't have a family I'd probably go for the extra money though. I mean, do you have something productive to do with thoes 6 extra hours?

[Unhinged]

Why the fuck are you working 51 hours a week? What sort of shithole of a country are you working in?

[Deleted]

Six hours of work and have a good fulfilling life, enemy of mankind and economic growth here.

[Independent voter]

6 hours less a week is nothing for me. They'd tell me that I was to work 6 hours less and then I'd wind up working 10-16 hour days anyway.

[Deleted]

Do Americans generally work more than 40 hours per week? :O

[Skyforge1]

6 hours a week ends up 312 hours less a year.

If i had to work 312 hours to earn $5200 that would mean i was working for $16.66 p/h

I would not work for that little

[Tierbook]

Depends, is this an extra 100$ per week or is it 5200$ at the end of the year. 100$ a week is little enough money that i'd barely notice it. But a single payment of $5200 would be quite nice.

[schwarzkopf]

Extra money, because I wouldn't end up working any longer anyway.

[ls-]

Working for 51hrs a week, where tf do you live? Anything above 40hrs per week is paid OT at higher rate.

I'll gladly take 6hrs That's whooping 312 (6 * 52) hours a year.

[Elim Garak]

After doing some math:
If you earn 18+ per hour (but not paid per hour) it's more profitable to work 34 hours a week instead of 40 and get the same pay, the more you earn per hour the more profitable it is to work less (if you are not paid per hour)
If you earn 17- per hour it's more profitable to take the money, the less you earn per hour the more profitable it is.

$5200 adds roughly $2.5 per hour.

[Corroc]

I find it funny that business asks this question from the workers. From health standpoint with the same money spend on workers but they work less hours is better for overall. Your workers would have more time off from work and get thoughts out of the work environment and less stress. Everyone knows this leads to more productivity.

[shadowmouse]

I would take the money. The offer of less time might be made in good faith, but the free time would evaporate with all the "we have a deadline, and we need to get this out" or "could you just take a quick look at this".

[ParanoiD84]

Less hours for sure, you only live once and i dont want to work all day everyday untill im 75 then sitt there with a shitty pention anyways.

6 hours less a day would be even sweeter only work 2 hours a day.

[Elim Garak]

I would take the money. The offer of less time might be made in good faith, but the free time would evaporate with all the "we have a deadline, and we need to get this out" or "could you just take a quick look at this".

Just say no and go home. Unless they are offering overtime pay - you are free to refuse.

[Kuntantee]

5200 for a year? That's ~$430 per month. I'll take less hours anytime.

[shadowmouse]

Just say no and go home. Unless they are offering overtime pay - you are free to refuse.

Looks great on paper, wouldn't bet on it being a great career move in real life. It may be a reasonable exercise of your rights, but I wouldn't bet on your peers and managers remembering it that way. That's something that leads to comments like "not a team player" on performance reviews.

[Knolan]

The story behind the question-

Its end of the year financial time. We typically assess our small businesses profit/loss reports and then increase manager salaries as % allow. This year the % was really close to $100 per week so we just rounded it up. When me and business partner were discussing it, I made the comment something similar to " I did the same job these managers do now for years and years and honestly I would have taken lowering the scheduled hours from 51 per week to 45 per week over the extra money. " which led to us discussing the merits of each. He feels most of our team would take the money. Knowing most of them, he is more than likely correct. But there are some that are older, or have kids, or sick relatives or go to college than I'm sure would at least consider working less hours.

Plan is to visit with each manager and ask if they would prefer one over the other. Would hate to get into a situation where some our taking one and some are taking the other. Feel it would lead to issues down the line. "He isn't working as much as me" " he makes more money than me" kind of things.

The math works out that breaking down hourly wages averaged they will come out just slightly ahead by working less hours over taking the money.

Thought it was interesting enough to post here for expanded thoughts.

No kids? Less hours.
Kids and not primary care taker? More money.
Kids and primary care taker*? Less hours.

Very unlikely scenario if you are working that many hours.

[Elim Garak]

Looks great on paper, wouldn't bet on it being a great career move in real life. It may be a reasonable exercise of your rights, but I wouldn't bet on your peers and managers remembering it that way. That's something that leads to comments like "not a team player" on performance reviews.

No it doesn't. If that happens that just means that your managers are either idiots or want to exploit you - so you should find another job. You are not making a career allowing yourself to be used. You'll just turn into a tool. They will not respect you.

If you are good at your job, you can easily find it elsewhere. Never miss an opportunity to remind your managers of that. Never allow them to use you for free. There's a legal way to incentivize you to spend your personal time for the company - overtime pay. Always demand it.

And if you are good at your job and your managers are not idiots - you will have your career. And when you get your career to the level where working overtime for free is beneficial to YOU (because you are a stock holder now) - you will decide for yourself.